Talk:Jerry Pournelle

RE: Lucifer's Hammer. It's mustard gas, not napalm, you non-fact-checking humps. Besides that, I thought that part of the article was hilarious.

---crimeraker

Well my critics may say that, but they don't define "right"; while some of my admirers think that The Strategy of Technology by Possony and Pournelle, and our work with SDI, had a beneficial effect on winning the Cold War.

JEP

Hey, Jerry, welcome to Wikipedia! Stick around and contribute, please! RickK 03:53 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty cool to see people doing vanity searches on Wikipedia. -- ESP 04:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My guess is that he came here via Google -- the article is ranked #12. However, it's still pretty shabby -- don't we have any Pournelle fans? --Eloquence 04:41 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I emailed JEP a heads-up that he had an entry earlier in the day. -- LarryW

Links to Journals

Links to BYTE and Dr'Dobbs journal both require subscription. IMHO they should be removed.

Well, that requirement was removed, so this objection is MOOT. Mike 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who maintains Jerry Pournelle's page?

Who checks the accuracy?

You do. I do. So does anyone else who is inclined to do so. Jamesday 04:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would like to add to the list of nonfiction that Jerry Pournelle published "Home Before the Leaves Fall" in an issue of _The General_ in the early 1970s. The article dealt with the Imperial German expectations of an easy victory over France in 1914. Avalon Hill published it about the time they brought out their game 1914. [Only an old boardgame fanatic would remember the game and the article.] --hlk

Also, _King David's Spaceship_ was first published in serial form in Analog as "A Spaceship for the King". Not a nickel's worth of difference between the two except for the better title in the serial form. --hlk

Parodies

A number of other Wikipedia entries also feature links to related parodies. There is a number of much circulated and frequently linked to parodies on the subject of this article, any reason these are not linked in?

Slashdot

In a story about DECnet, someone threw out a Jerry Pournelle reference. - McCart42 (talk) 7 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

I think this is misleading.

---

In a 1997 article Norman Spinrad wrote that Pournelle had written the SDI portion of Ronald Reagan's State of the Union Address, as part of a plan to use SDI to get more money for space exploration, exploiting the larger defence budget.

---

It suggests SDI was just a way to get more money for space, when it was in fact a legitimate Anti-Missile Defense. I think Dr Pournelle might have a counterpoint to that.

Direct Commission

Dr Pournelle told me this direct commission stuff did not happen.

Whitewashing Falkenberg

The person(s) who try to whitewash John Christian Falkernberg and hide the very brutal means he uses to "solve the problem" on the planet Hadley is (are) doing a very stupid thing. Falkenberg is nothing if not brutally honest, and that is what Pounelle is clearly trying to convey by creating the charcter. Falkenberg is fully aware that he had perpetrated a pre-meditated massacre, which in his best judgement was what the situation needed. If the writer and character appeals to you, the least you can do is acknowlege this. Anyway, the article as it stands is certainly nowhere near the Neutral Point of View required by Wikipedia. Adam Keller 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

However, orginally the section of "Politics in Fiction" was even more grossly bias aginst Falkenburg, making it sound like he murdered alot of helpless people. In reality (of the story ), Falkenburg was outnumbered by the armed Freedom Party partisans with brtutal city fighting who were resiting the government, and there were people in the statdium who were armed. Still, 30,000 people in a stadium is still a large force aginst a few thousand mercenaries. I considered putting down Falkenburg's own reactions in the story, but it just did not seem like the right place to put it. The article subject had an non-objective view of the event, with the relevant facts. It was up to the reader to decide wither or not Falkenburg commited an arosicty or not. --Eldarone 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Numbers don't make a difference. When trained, orgainised and determined soldiers face disorganised civilians the result can never be in doubt, even when the ciivlans are in far greater numbers and even if some are armed. The only way it can be otherwise is if the soldiers DON'T WANT to shoot the civilans (that is, for example, the difference between what happend in Russia in 1905 and in 1917 - in 1905 the soldiers did shoot the crowds and the revolution was crushed, in 1917 they didn't shoot because they were sick and tired on the old regime and of WWI, and the revolution won). In the Pournelle story, the soldeiers are as determined as can be and the civlians don't not have the slightest chance in the world. What Pournelle describes is not a battle but a massacre, and Falkenberg is completely aware of what he is doing. What Pournelle set out to do in this story is create a situation where perpetrating a pre-mediatated, cold-blooded massacre is the only way to save the planet, Falkenberg sees that it is so and does what needs to be done. I don't particularly like Pournelle's views (I think that is obvious) and if wrote the story I would have tried to find a different solution - but it is Pournelle's stroy, written the way it is and which I think nobody else would have dared to write it. (I think he writes well, starting from premises which I very much don't like - which is why I bother to read his books and comment on them.) By trying to find for Falkenberg justifications which he himself manifestly does not dream of looking for, you are chepening him and Pournelle. You should give Pournelle the courage of his convictions, and what he tries to convey by creating the character of Falkenberg. Anyway, just writing "Fakenberg solves the problem", and refering the reader to another article which he may or may not turn to, is simply not good enough - certainly not up to the minimal standards required in Wilipedia. Adam Keller 06:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk about Non Point of View. You're saying it's a massacre, when you're ignoring the releveant data. You're interpreting the events as witness from your understanding. Let the reader anaylize the facts, not one's point of view. Falkenburg was angry because it could have been avoid, if the Freedom Party had listened and not revolted, had BuReloc not sent thousands to Hadley and then abandoned them to starvation and collapse, had stupid people not made stupid decisions. And Falkenburg knew he only brought time, if not used correctly, would have still led to collapse. No wonder he's upset, it could have been avoided, but the options got narrower and narrower. As for numbers, then why have mass conscript armies managed to overwhelm smaller, more trained military forces in history? Although I do admit, the French Revolutionary Army at least had some veterans, but they still had to draft alot alot of people just to win aginst their much better enemies. Notably the French Revoltuion Amry and The Red Army during the Great Patrotic War. One could point out that unlike these fiorces Tthe Freedom Party Partisians were just untrained, unorgainzed civilians without any veterans. However, I do not recall at any event in the book (i may be incorrect) that it was ever stated that the Freedom Party was unorganized. Surely they lad leadershiop of the Freedom Party leaders, and they still held back a mercenary force of professionals. That's data that showing that they were probably organized enough to fight back the mercenaries in urban warfare. --Eldarone 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cetrtainly, in fighting between a motiavated conscript army and a professional one the result is far from pre-determined. But this has nothing to do with this case. What you have here is a professional unit penetrating into a stadium where people - some armed and some unarmed - are holding a political rally, concentrating on hearing speeches and shouting slogans. They are not in any kind of military formation, are not expecting any trouble - they think they have won already. In the unlikely case of trouble, they expect that there will be long delaying fighting in the guardrooms and they will have ample time to get organised. But Falkenberg gets a total surprise, and he has also the commanding heights. A few of them start shooting as disoganised indivuauals, many try to swarm up as a mob without any organization - and then 700 of Falkneberg's men shoot a volley. Do you realise what this means? They had no chance whatsoever, they could have been 300,000 instead of 30,000 and still would have no chance. No mob in the world would be able to charge in the face of this. Anyway, what about inserting the following instead of the bland and stupid "Falkenberg solves the problem"? I think it is eminently fair to Falkenberg and to Pournelle.Adam Keller 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Falkenberg finds what he considers a brutal but unavoidable solution: in order to force the city people to move to the countryside, the Freedom Party must be completely crushed, in however bloody a way - as the other alternative is a total economic collapse in which at least a third of the population would perish. Accordingly, he gets his soldiers into the stadium where the Freedom Party holds its rally, catching its members by complete surprise. His men, firing deadly volleys and advancing with bayonets fixed, break the disorganized resistance and proceed to systematically kill the armed militants and party leaders. Mission completed, with blood literally flowing down the stadium aisles, Falkenberg hands over power to planetary President Hamner, a well-meaning liberal who hitherto could only wring his hands in despair, and departs the planet. He freely offers to Hamner himself and his men as scapegoats, since "nobody is going to forget what happened today". Pournelle clearly set up the situation leading up to such a climax as illustrating his opinion, that in some situations a brutal solution is unavoidable and that those willing to implement such a solution unflinchingly should be considered heroes.

Agree to the proposal. --Eldarone 17:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

LinkSpam removed

Bogus link by indefinitely blocked spammer deleted from external references.

This is the current list of domain names used by Wayne Smith AKA Projectorion/UniverseToday/UniverseDaily/ etc ad nauseam

• jerrypournelle.net
• yowiehunter.com
• spaceforums.net
• spaceforums.org
• badastronomer.net
• universedaily.org
• badastronomer.org
• spaceonion.com
• space4peace.com
• badastronomer.com
• jeeperscreepers3.net
• universetoday.net
• robertzubrin.com
• spaceforums.info
• spacedaily.info
• universetoday.info
• nuclearspace.org
• universedaily.com
• jonathanbreck.com
• wikipedian.info
• universedaily.info
• everythingspace.com
• stephenhawkingsuniverse.com
• alienlife.info
• wikipediac.net
• wikipediam.net
• wikipedial.net
• wikipediac.info
• wikipediam.info
• wikipedial.info
• sciforums.info
• carlsagan.info
• amateurspaceflight.com
• atomicrockets.com
• projectorion.org
• projectorion.net
• projectorion.info

This Week In Tech

Would someone like to add information about his appearances on this WEEK in TECH? Yavoh 02:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Mike 02:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Artillery

Dr Pournelle says this is false.

receiving a reserve commission as a Lieutenant of Artillery

I am removing it. Jokem 02:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New article for Jerry Pournelles books?

I just created an article on this author's book. Birth of Fire, and have noticed there articles on many other books by this author. I'm wondering if, due to the small size article alloted for each book. If we should simply create a main article on Jerry Pournelles books. Like

Books by Jerry Pournelle and then we could list out each of his books and a plot summary etc. if we have one.

Anyone up for this? It'd be kind of like the lists of video game characters or 'sci fi universe locales'. Easy to access, compressed, and a lessening of strain on the Wikipedia servers.

I say we go ahead with this once we get a general consensus. I'll wait about a week or two if the responses are slow. And if this plan goes forward then I'll be glad to help. (We'll need to delete the old articles though. I'm not quite sure how to do that). Nateland 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me direct your attention to the works of David Sherman. Here is a science-fiction author somewhat similar in prolificity (is that a word?) to Pournelle, and his books each have their own article; his article series have their own articles as well, all listed in a Bibliography section in the biography. A similar situation exists with respect to the more famous authors Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, Tom Clancy, and James Thurber. I would propose that your idea is thoughtful and interesting, but it's not being "done" in the case of other authors, so perhaps it is not the way to handle Pournelle's works, either. Mike 06:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I just felt it awkward for there to be seperate articles for each of his books. (Although a condensed article would probably be just as awkward. For the Deathworld series we integrated it all into a single article. But there was only a paragraph synopsis available for each book. Nateland 15:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate book lists

The article contains two separate lists of books written by Pournelle, under "Writing career", and under "Bibliography". If there is no objection, I will combine them. --Blainster 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the first list is chronological while the second is alphabetical. Are both really needed? --Blainster 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

portrait

He looks drunk in that picture! Is there none better? —Tamfang 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SEK3?

Is Jerry Pournelle related to Samuel Edward Konkin III? They do seem to resemble each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III